On Apr 14, 2012, at 1:38 AM, David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 13, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: >>> More pragmatically, while I understand the theory behind rejecting NTAs, >>> I have to admit it feels a bit like the IETF rejecting NATs and/or DNS >>> redirection. I would be surprised if folks who implement NTAs will stop >>> using them if they are not accepted by the IETF. >>> >> it is still not a reason for the IETF to standardize this. > > With the implication that multiple vendors go and implement the same thing in > incompatible ways. I always get a headache when this sort of thing happens as > the increased operational costs of non-interoperable implementations usually > seems more damaging to me than violations of architectural purity. Different > perspectives I guess.
Then I should probably go ahead and write another draft with just one statement in it, maybe something like "do not put in NTAs in a resolver". Problem solved? But I guess that it would have the same effect as RFC 5966. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
